Hi
Sukumar,
I understand it may be
difficult to retrofit a conformance section into an existing
specification.
I just wonder if we really
have only one conformance target ("implementation") for this standard. Is
there any concept of something else other than an "implementation" that
could be the target of conformance for this standard? Say, a "message", a
"server", a "client", a "process", etc.? Would the conformance
requirements be the same for all targets?
If it is too difficult
to introduce such distinctions at this stage, then maybe we shouldn't bother--it
can be done more thoughtfully in the next version.
Alessandro
All,
I found out that we need to
include a conformance statement as part of new TC process – attached is a
document that was sent by OASIS staff. Based on the document, I have created a
first draft (copied below). I have also added it to the word document and have
posted it to the repository.
Please review and let me know if
you have any edits/changes. I am waiting for a reply on how this would impact
the process i.e. if we need to again vote it as a CD etc.
Thanks
Sukumar
--------------------------
4.
CONFORMANCE
An implementation is a conforming EDXL-HAVE if the
implementation meets the conditions in Section
4.1.
4.1
CONFORMANCE AS
EDXL-HAVE
1.
Supports the use of EDXL-DE, or a
similar distribution element
2.
Supports the syntax and semantics
in the Data Dictionary (Sec 3.2)
3.
Supports the defined EDXL-HAVE
schema (attached artifact)
This electronic message transmission contains
information from SRA International, Inc., which may be confidential,
privileged or proprietary. The information is intended for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of
this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic
information in error, please notify SRA immediately by telephone at
866-584-2143.